How long will this take?
We don't have the final answer to anything. We're evaluating thousands of strains and large numbers of genetic changes. The long-term solution is to make the entire genetic code from scratch and control all the parameters. To us, this is a long-term plan. It's a 10-year plan. We're not promising new fuel for your car in the next 18 months.
So how long would it take before people can gas-up with algae fuel?
The time it takes to build a large-scale facility to produce billions of gallons; it takes three to four years just to build the facility once we know what to build. There's a lot of what I call bio-babble and hype out there from a lot of bioenergy companies. I don't see it. These are huge challenges. Nobody has the yields, that I'm aware of, to make it economical—and, if it's not economical, it can't compete. It's going to be the ones with scientific innovation and deep-pocket partners that can see to making the long term investment to get someplace.
How will you get nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, to stimulate algae growth?
We need three major ingredients: CO2, sunlight and seawater, aside from having the facility and refinery to convert all those things. We're looking at sites around the world that have the major ingredients. It helps if it's near a major refinery because that limits shipping distances. Moving billions of gallons of hydrocarbons around is expensive. But refineries are also a good source of concentrated CO2.
It's the integration of the entire process. [Synthetic Genomics] is not trying to become a fuel company. You won't see SGI gas stations out there, we're leaving that to ExxonMobil. We will help them shift the source of hydrocarbons to material recycled from CO2.
What about water? Algae would need a lot of it to grow.
We think we can recycle a lot of what we're doing. … Novel technologies for recycling wastewater [like microbial fuel cells]. Water is a problem, recycling it and capturing back all the nutrients. If you have to add tons of fertilizer per acre you're not really solving anything.
What was the bigger challenge: the human genome or algae?
There are 500 different parameters in the cells and in the systems. Absolutely, algae is the bigger challenge. I did [the human genome] in nine months. This is definitely a bigger challenge. It also has a lot bigger implications for the world if we're successful.
How will synthetic biology play a role?
Genome design and genetic code synthesis play a huge role. We need to control all those parameters. I doubt there's any naturally occurring cell that would combine all those in an optimal fashion. It wouldn't have any value in terms of natural evolution. We have to make it happen and do it synthetically with our programs.
The synthesis side of it is no longer a challenge. The cell we started with is a goat pathogen. It has 1.1 million base pairs. Some of the simpler algae are not even twice that size. We can routinely make chromosomes in megabase size range. Synthesizing is no longer the rate limiting step of this problem.
The state of biological knowledge in the world is so limited. Even those Mycoplasma cells with less than 500 genes, there are still 200 genes of unknown function in that cell. There is not a living system where we understand even most of the genes in the cell and what they all do. That's our biggest challenge: overcoming the limits of biological knowledge at this point.
Now what we know because of our synthetic cell is that once we are able to design what we want, we can build it. That's not something we knew five years ago. Nobody made things. The largest piece of synthetic DNA was 30,000 base pairs. Now we're making these large constructs and being able to do something with them to test the biology.
Tell me about the two-year Sorcerer II cruise, where you sampled a huge amount of ocean DNA—so large that you concluded you found 95 percent of all genes known to science.
We didn't know at that time we would end up in the algae business. We sampled in fact by just looking at the genetic code to understand what was out there. We have a broader view than almost anybody about the diversity of genetics and algae around the planet. That's why we're not so sanguine about finding the magic bug out there to do everything. Those 50 [million] or 60 million genes that Sorcerer II has discovered are the design components of the future.
See what we're tweeting about
40 Comments
Add CommentMaybe your writers are too young to remember this, but your older science fiction fans have heard this one already. Millions of sad people trudging around on an overpopulated world, munching on green biscuits made of algae. (Spoiler Alert) But it turns out that Soylent Green (1973) isn't actually made from algae, it's made from people... SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE! And as in 1973, our answer is the same. We don't want a future with 20 Billion people on the planet eating biscuits made of algae nor people; the one path to a good future is population control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess Mr Venter, besides his wonderful quest for discovery, wants to capitalize on the fact that the artificial organism can be patented as a technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis causes however, great danger. Live organism can breed and mutate for eternity, so can cause more mischief than conventional technology. If Venter's algae get out of control and became a pest impossible to extinguish completely, say pollute water supply, kill fish or whatever? Who pays for cleanup? A company which will go bankrupt and dump the bill on taxpayer? Do we have another case of privatising benefits and nationalising risk?
Wow. An organism that actually consumes carbon dioxide to product food! Amazing. I suggest we call it a plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeautiful
sounds and
a delicate care
in the heart of
a soft wind,
with a tender
profile and a
warm atmosphere.
Francesco Sinibaldi
This is a failed technology the refuses to die. Every 5 years there is a new round of startups, funding and failure. Fix the real problem. Population expansion. It's significantly more efficient and leaves the planet habitable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the algae is engineered , the population will crash
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@janera @jarvan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are serious about population control, then Japan, China, India, the US, Canada and most of Europe (From the Atlantic back to Russia) which have currently declining populations already nearly balance the slow growth happening in SE Asia, Latin America and the Islamic world. the remaining growth is happening in Africa. Wars and disease are not longer limiting the population growth in sub-saharan Africa.
We are at 7 Billion right now, and the UN expects it to peak at 9 Billion in about 25 years.
The US looks to have some trouble there, as we have been importing people from Europe, Mexico and India since the late 1970s when the US population started to decline. With Europe and India losing population, and Mexico having a drastic slowing in 'excess population', the US will have to find other places to get the extra people we need to sustain our industrial infrastructure.
Don't look to the Islamic world, Europe is already using them.
Don't look to Southeast Asia and the Phillipines, Japan and Korea are already using them.
What will happen when Africa gets mined out of it's 'excess population' is going to be a really serious situation.
A separate thought:
This technology (algae farming) has been predicted by Science Fiction for many decades. It's not the deliberate nightmare of 'Soylent Green' from the movie. That was just a twisted version of recycling. No, most people will want to get their food from farms, just like now. With an expected peak population of 9 Billion people, they can. This magazine reviewed work last month that current farmland, if used efficiently could feed and clothe 15 Billion people. We know that all the land will never be all farmed effeciently, so we may have to settle for only sharing enough food and clothing for 10 Billion people with 9 billion.
Where Algae will be very useful is in space. Algae are the most efficient plants known. They produce a good bit of protein and carbohydrates. The also produce a good amount of oxygen doing it. Even if we don't wind up eating algae, our cattle or whatever will.
Plus, the oils make good feedstock for plastics and things like that.
Many of you may not realize that you're already eating algae on a daily basis. Those fortified ingredients in your rice, pasta and bread? Much of that is derived from algae.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEngineering algae can solve a whole lot of our problems. We already know what happens when the inputs stop that create the algae. The algae dies and animals eat it. Being scared of this is just silly.
Algae also has a lot of uses as fiber, in the making of fabric. It can be used to manufacture natural flavors and scents. It can remove a whole lot of carbon from our atmosphere and return nutrients to deserts in the oceans. Algae is humanity's best friend.
I would feel a whole lot better about this if Venter weren't collecting millions from Exxon, and oh yes, if Exxon hadn't begun drilling for oil (the real oil, not the hocus-pocus algae oil) in the beleaguered Gulf of Mexico.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I applaud all efforts to find viable alternative energies -- and ones the public and the US government will embrace -- it's hard to trust Exxon's intentions.
BP scrapped a perfectly good hydrogen refueling station in Singapore in favor of biofuels. What's to say that Exxon won't scrap this plan the minute some analyst "proves" it's un-doable? And as for Venter, if BP paid him the same amount to do research would he take it?
What I am interested in is the hard work Venter did in the oceans and I wish, perhaps, a cleaner revenue source were funding his research. Exxon would need to say no to dirty fuel and deepwater drilling to gain a smidgeon of my trust; even so, I have faith in Venter as a light of our generation, whose research may bear promise for companies I trust.
"We're speeding up evolution by billions of years," ..... "It's hard to imagine a part of humanity not substantially impacted."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah and with partners like Exxon, Monsanto and da da da daaa Mexican finance* .. we're all looking forward to it.
*I have to declare an interest here i live in Mexico.
Oh and this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"!Why not get rid of the cows?"
I can see this philosophy being widely applied by these guys..
<blockquote><b>How will you get nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, to stimulate algae growth?</b>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need three major ingredients: CO2, sunlight and seawater, aside from having the facility and refinery to convert all those things. We're looking at sites around the world that have the major ingredients. It helps if it's near a major refinery because that limits shipping distances. Moving billions of gallons of hydrocarbons around is expensive. But refineries are also a good source of concentrated CO2.</blockquote>
Completely dodging the question. You very much need phosphorus and nitrogen otherwise nothing will grow. But how those are going to be provided on the scale needed is never mentioned, Because they can't be and this is the fatal flaw with all biofuel schemes, one that is making them not just wishful thinking but something potentially very destructive if attempted on very large scale.
The question is why he avoided the answer. There are two possibilities:
1. He is aware of that "small" problem
2. He genuinely isn't
I don't know which one is worse...
I sure wish Venter had talked, or the interviewer had gotten him to talk, about why he thinks hydrocarbs from algae makes more sense than electricity from solar. They would have different uses of course, but there is some overlap. For example, a major consumer of hydrocarbons is conventionally fueled vehicles. Alcohol from algae could fuel those vehicles, but at least some of those vehicles could also run on electricity from PV (which would have a lower carbon footprint, possibly a negative one, as opposed to being merely carbon neutral like algae.) Also, he claims algal biofuel requires less space than plant-based biofuel, but what about the cost of the factory? Algae requires water, containers, some way to draw off the alcohol, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that Nostradamus wrote that cows will be destroyed due to a human poisoning.Jan 2013 is a date I am checking.Just a third of the human race....nothing serious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae could feed and fuel the world. So could current technology IF there were the political will to it. We already have all the resources and technology we need. If Venter really wanted an easy way to feed the world he could just modify the genetics of human skin cells to produce chloroplasts along side our melanocytes (pigmentation cells that tan our skin). Then we could get all the energy our bodies need just from siting in the Sun. This would give the phrase "going green' a whole new meaning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae may not be the best route to fuel from sunlight. At best they will convert at about 10% efficiency. Currently pv cells , sold commercially, acheive about 18% and are likely to double that in the future. Electroysing water to hydrogen and oxygen is at least 66% efficient. So, though hydrogen has problems as a fuel, it could make a useful feedstock to treat organic wastes and rubbish to produce hydrocarbon fuels. I'm not a chemist, but I would think that would be a useful line of research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose we have to learn to put up with a certain amount of ideological garbage on this site. Especially now the clueless protesters are being moved on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRefering to post 10.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10. lauriewiegler
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"a cleaner revenue source were funding his research. Exxon would need to say no to dirty fuel and deepwater drilling to gain a smidgeon of my trust"
Cleaner in what way? It's not as though Exxon was running addictive drugs(well, ok, I guess we are rather "addicted" to oil). Still, it's not Exxons fault that oil is a necessary ingredient to run our civilization. They just do the discovery, extraction, distillation and delivery of oil products. That's their job and they are very good at it. As far as dirty fuel is concerned, ALL petrochemical fuel is "dirty", in the sense that all of it is a complex hydrocarbon which must be combined with oxygen and produces CO2 as a waste product. Three quarters of the earth is covered by oceans. It's likely that three quarters of the worlds oil reserves are also covered by ocean. If we're to continue our technological civilization, we will have to go to where ever the oil is and extract it. I note that Exxon/Mobile has about the best safety record of any of the big five producers. It isn't perfect(nothing is) and could probably be improved upon but for my money, Exxon/Mobile is a pretty good company. I'm glad to see they're investing in this tech.
BP scrapped the H2 station because they are one of the first oil companies to realize that H2 vehicles are a dead end. If you get H2 by electrolysis, you will be using more than 2.5x as much electricity to go 100 miles than you would with an Electric vehicle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEV: 85% plug-to-wheels efficiency = 85 / 100 energy units used to move vehicle
H2: electrolysis (80%) * compression & storage (90%) * fuel cell efficiency (50%) * DC to AC (95%) * EV powertrain (95%) = 33 / 100 energy units used to move vehicle
Using natural gas as a feedstock yields the same energy efficiency and is comparable to an electric vehicle charged by a natural gas power plant (unless it's a Combined-Cycle plant, then the EV uses 42 units of energy out of 100 vs the H2 vehicle's 33). However, why wouldn't you just build natural gas cars instead? They would have about the same range and refueling them would be MUCH easier than building H2 refueling stations. You could actually park your car in a standard garage instead of worrying about invisible hydrogen fires burning down your house. Most importantly, there are natural gas vehicles for sale for around $26K:
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/
Meanwhile, we get vague promises from Toyota that they can get the price on a fuel cell car around $50K by 2015:
http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/01/14/toyota-fuel-cell-sedan-on-track-for-2015/
H2 vehicles were always a subsidy magnet and a blatant attempt at green-washing Big Oil's corporate image. The ONLY advantage that H@ vehicles had was that they can be refueled in under 10 minutes, but since a H2 electrolysis station is about 10x more costly than a gas station to serve the same amount of vehicles, why would anybody open an H2 station unless it was just a publicity stunt? H2 may work for aircraft and certain long-haul trucking, but it won't work for personal transportation.
The key words here are "sitting in the sun". There is a reason we differentiate between animals and plants,,,animals move around, running on the concentrated fuel they imbibe by eating plants. Plants stay in one place, running on the diffuse energy they receive from the sun. In 3.5 billion years of evolution, I expect if it was possible for plants to be mobile critters,,,they already would be,,,and we'd call them animals,,,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Still, it's not Exxons fault that oil is a necessary ingredient to run our civilization."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, all the lobbying, campaign contributions and general disruption of our political system at the hands of Exxon and all the other huge energy conglomerates has NOTHING to do with the difficulty the U.S. has had in kicking it's fossil fuel addiction, right? The fact that preferential subsidies and policies of the government that uniquely benefit dirty energy have no effect either, am I correct? The fact that dirty energy is able to use our atmosphere, water and land as their open sewer FOR FREE doesn't distort the price signal for their products one bit either, right?
Seriously, the successful effort by the auto & oil companies to dismantle America's public transit had NOTHING to do with how we are still dependent on oil, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines
"BP scrapped the H2 station because they are one of the first oil companies to realize that H2 vehicles are a dead end. If you get H2 by electrolysis, you will be using more than 2.5x as much electricity to go 100 miles than you would with an Electric vehicle:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amazing thing is not that they scrapped it but that anyone bothered with hydrogen in the first place. It is obvious to everyone who knows just a little bit about thermodynamics that hydrogen is a dead end because it is net energy sink so the fact that so many people thought it is a "solution" (and many still think so) is truly horrifying because it exemplifies how deep and widespread ignorance about really basic things is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre comment #7 from "Yet Another Bob":
He said "Japan, China, India, the US, Canada and most of Europe...have currently declining populations already nearly balance [sic] the slow growth happening in SE Asia, Latin America and the Islamic world."
This is almost complete nonsense. Japan, China, India, the US, Canada and over half of Europe have increasing populations—just decreasing rates of increase. And if the growth happening in SE Asia, Latin America and the Islamic backwaters is slow, what’s fast?
The total world population is increasing, births minus deaths, by over 140 people every minute of every day. It took the human race 100 years to grow from 1 billion to 2 billion people (1830 to 1930); less than half of that to double again, in 1975, to 4 billion; and roughly the same length of time to double again, to 8 billion, by 2025.
So the rate of growth is slowing, all right. But the growth is continuing apace, and it's outstripping our ability to give all those people food and water.
Overpopulation deniers like "Yet another Bob" indulge in armwaving at this point, claiming we can feed every now (1 billion humans are starving) through redistribution and technology.
Overpopulation realists say technology can't contravene the laws of physics--and we're way past the point of sustainability, such that it would take 1.4 Earths to keep today's population at its current standard of living indefinitely.
Besides, unless you’re a doctrinaire Roman Catholic, what’s wonderful about cramming 7 billion humans into this planet’s livable regions? If you look at it realistically, Earth can accommodate maybe half that number of humans sustainably. 3 ½ billion people. That was the world’s population in 1970. I don’t recall anyone then saying it was tragic that we didn’t have twice as many people.
We don't have to solve this problem. Nature will do it for us. But you won't like how Nature does it. I guarantee it.
www.blogzu.blogspot.com
Ehkzu: Excellent post. I agree with everything you posted. Over-population of planet earth by humans is the ROOT of all other problems. Starvation of humans and de-forestation and pollution of air and water and global warming and wars and the extinction of many species etc etc are ALL driven by the fact there are too many damn humans on planet earth. All this is why I decided long ago to NOT have any children. I am doing planet earth a small favor by NOT spewing forth any human children and adding to the dangerous and bloated human population on planet earth. I am ashamed to be a human.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL If only we could eat sunlight, the world would be free from hunger. Alas we can only eat plants that "feed" on sunlight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae holds promise as a fuel of the future. But I would first exploit present technologies to replace gasoline cars. The most low-tech is the bicycle. A very simple yet highly efficient machine. Its power-to-weight ratio is higher than a diesel locomotive or a Sherman tank.
Next the electric car. A modest 20-kw lithium ion battery on a lightweight subcompact sedan body can go 400 km or more on a single charge. Then you have alternative fuels like biodiesel from used cooking oil and animal fats, and methane extracted from sewage and municipal wastes. This is the same as compressed natural gas being used by buses.
World hunger is caused by poverty. It's true the world is producing enough food to feed all 7 billion people. In fact food consumption per capita worldwide has been increasing in the last 40 yrs. In 1960s it was 2,300 calories per capita. Now it's over 2,700 calories per capita. On average humans only need 2,000 calories a day. Over that you become overweight. Below that you are undernourished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"it would take 1.4 Earths to keep today's population at its current standard of living indefinitely"
If it refers to food, then 1/3 of the world population or about 2 billion people will die soon. This is a Malthusian prophesy I hope will not come true.
BTW I favor population control.
@several commenters
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed, algae for food are staple floating in sci-fi stories ;-) since decades. But they didn't become mainstream. It would be interesting to read the blog post why.
I guess, that algae don't have nutrients in right proportions for general human consumption, and that cultures of desired algae easily become overgrown by other water organisms.
I came here to post exactly this. Kudos for beating me to it. Just how much longer do we have before the "SOYLENT GREEN" actually is people. :(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about vitamin B12? Don't those algae produce vitamin B12 analogs that will compete with the functional vitamin forms for humans making you more susceptible to suffer from megalocytic anemia and other health issues?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are talking about storing the Suns energy. The amount reaching the ground varies according to latitude and cloud cover. The question is "can more of it be stored with algae than any other means". I believe that floral photo synthesis is not very efficient ( about 5% ) whereas the latest panels are approaching 15%. So it boils down to economics. Is it better to produce more algae at 5% than panels at 15%?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgae to Fiber!! I thought that Algae could be engineered to make fibers that require minimum processing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine tanks that take human wast, grow single celled algae that produce longe cellulose strands. Then net them out for paper, and cloth.
"Algae to Fiber!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis highlights the danger of putting engineers in charge of anything. They latch onto an ideal like this and push ahead without thinking about the implications or the alternatives. Alternatives? Sure, how about a plant that can grow fibers without genetic engineering? Maybe we could call it "Cotton."
But after you release your genetically modified algae we might well find casualties such as the death of the world's entire population of whales, with their baleens clogged with mysterious algae fibers.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle as we have already seen with genetically modified soy beans. Engineered products that were never approved for human consumption have found their way around the planet. In 1997, for instance, 8% of all soybeans cultivated for the commercial market in the United States were genetically modified. In 2010, the figure was 93%. These modifications weren't to make a tastier or more nutritious soybean. Rather it was to make the plant tolerant of tons of the chemical herbicide "Roundup" being poured onto it.
(National Agricultural Statistics Board annual report, June 30, 2010)
Cultivated algae absorb 15 times more energy than they produce!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are past the point of population control. The only country to really take it on was China, and we were their biggest critics (because baby girls being the ones to mostly suffer the consequences). The best thing to do at this point is switch away from the meat based diet. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that this will happen - people are just too stubborn. We are stuck with hoping for a technological breakthrough. Gene Roddenberry was right. He said technology would be the salvation of humanity. The algae solution for food will also alleviate massive amounts of suffering among farm animals. There's a lot of good in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. But a more efficient plant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour honesty is refreshing. So you're basically saying that genetic engineering to grow the supply side is not the answer but rather eugenic engineering to decrease demand is the best solution. Forgive me for not wanting to hop on that particular bandwagon with you. I'm sure you understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenter didn't dodge the question. He said they believed that recycling was economical. Last I checked there isn't much phosphorous, potassium, or nitrogen in hydrocarbon fuel molecules so after you squeeze or otherwise extract the fuel out of the biomass you recycle what's left over which necessarily includes the NPK fertilizers and water. If municipal wastewater is the source that's already rich in nutrients to start with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So the rate of growth is slowing, all right. But the growth is continuing apace, and it's outstripping our ability to give all those people food and water."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there's not enough food or water then the population declines accordingly. Problem solved. Thanks for playing.
"All this is why I decided long ago to NOT have any children."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you!
"I am doing planet earth a small favor by NOT spewing forth any human children and adding to the dangerous and bloated human population on planet earth."
Don't sell yourself short. I consider it a huge favor.
"I am ashamed to be a human."
I agree. I'm ashamed that you're a human too!